Thursday, May 5, 2016

The final YouGov poll of the campaign has been released tonight, and rather troublingly, it puts the SNP at their lowest share of the constituency vote since way back before last year's UK general election. (And I mean the lowest with any polling firm, not just with YouGov.) Over the last twelve months, there have been only four polls putting the SNP below 50% - and three of those have come in the last week. There can be no credible room for doubt that the SNP have been slipping downwards over the course of the campaign - which is exactly what many of us warned would probably happen when they were getting wildly unrealistic 60%+ figures with TNS. Luckily, they still have a decent chance of a majority on 48% of the constituency vote and 41% of the list vote - but it's getting far too close for comfort. They're now polling just 3% better on the constituencies than in the final result five years ago - and they're polling 3% worse on the list. Remember they failed to win twenty constituency seats last time, leaving them needing a minimum of twelve list seats for a majority. Hopefully, this will shake some of the SNP supporters who have been treating the list vote as a "bonus" or "luxury" vote out of their complacency - and if so, it's not a moment too soon.Constituency ballot :
SNP 48% (-2)
Labour 22% (+1)
Conservatives 19% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 7% (+2)

Regional list ballot :

SNP 41% (-4)
Conservatives 20% (+2)
Labour 19% (n/c)
Greens 9% (+1)Liberal Democrats 6% (+1)UKIP 4% (+1) Pumping those numbers into the Scotland Votes calculator gives the SNP 69 seats - just four clear of the target for an overall majority, and crucially, four of the seats come from the list. Any further slippage on the list due to so-called "tactical voting" or any other reason could prove extremely costly.

If the SNP do lose their majority, it looks like it could well be The Greens Wot Done It (with a little help from the vote-splitting propaganda campaign run by the Sunday Herald and Bella Caledonia, it has to be said). Although we know from past history there's a significant chance that the Greens are being overestimated by the polls, it's also the case that their 9% share in this poll is 3% higher than they managed in the equivalent YouGov poll exactly five years ago. So they could well be on course to gain a few seats - but if they do so at the expense of an SNP majority, it could set back the cause of independence by years. The unionist media aren't going to be remotely impressed by a nominal pro-indy majority consisting of the SNP and Greens - in fact, they probably won't even acknowledge it as an arithmetical fact. All you'll hear about from now until Christmas is how Nicola Sturgeon and her separatist army were humbled, against all the odds.

Meanwhile, the Tories are crowing about their second place on the list in this poll, but actually I'm not sure that's going to be good enough for them. It's true that second place will almost certainly be decided exclusively be the list result, but the problem is that polling on the list also tends to be less accurate than constituency polling. Labour's 3% advantage on the constituency vote could be a better guide to what's about to happen, especially as YouGov have been the most Tory-friendly pollster throughout much of the last few months.

If UKIP really do get 4% of the list vote, they could easily nick a seat or two in their more favourable regions, leading to the ultimate calamity of David Coburn as a dual mandate MSP and MEP. However, they haven't been doing as well as that in other recent polls, so let's not despair just yet.

* * *SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS
Please bear in mind that the SNP only remain slightly above 50% in this update of the Poll of Polls due to the older polls in the sample - an average of the three most recent polls puts them at 48.7% of the constituency vote.Constituency ballot :SNP 50.3% (-0.4)Labour 21.3% (+0.1)Conservatives 17.7% (n/c)Liberal Democrats 6.5% (+0.3)Regional list ballot :SNP 44.2% (-0.5)Labour 19.8% (n/c)Conservatives 18.7% (+0.4)Greens 7.8% (+0.1)Liberal Democrats 5.7% (+0.2)(The Poll of Polls is based on a rolling average of the most recent poll from each of the firms that have reported Scottish Parliament voting intention numbers over the previous three months, and that adhere to British Polling Council rules. At present, there are six - Panelbase, Survation, BMG, YouGov, TNS and Ipsos-Mori. Whenever a new poll is published, it replaces the last poll from the same company in the sample.)

116 comments:

Poll of Polls are meaningless when an election campaign moves this fast. This is the most recent poll and it has to be assumed the most accurate.

It has to be Both Votes SNP now to ensure a majority.

The SNP had good reason to promote this strategy all along - expecting support could drop in the final weeks, with all the media coverage given to the other parties and a biased audience BBC TV debate.

Splitting the vote at this point could be an absolute disaster that will set the cause of independence back years.

"this could set back the cause of independence by years. The unionist media aren't going to be remotely impressed by a nominal pro-indy majority consisting of the SNP and Greens".

To me this is such narrow thinking.

The cause of Independence will be hugely advanced (as it has been already) by it not being owned by a single party but being so obviously part of a much bigger movement for self-determination and social justice.

Who cares what the Unionist media think?

Why let them scare you?

We (the Yes movement) are in this to win, and we stand a far better chance of winning if we have an SNP/ Green Government - or a minority SNP Government having to respond to a strong Green presence - than if we have 3rd term SNP governing alone.

We can win the long game if we're positive, but we lose if we let ourselves be dominated by fear, however much we appear to get some immediate illusory gain (as the Unionists did in September 2014).

As I just said to my Green fellow voters on Bella: let's make it 1st Vote SNP, 2nd Vote Green, let's win the long game

I think Justin Kenrick makes a good point. The SNP do not have any sort of moral right to the votes of every pro-independence supporter. Furthermore, I don't think it would be a disaster if the SNP needed Green support to govern. Increasing the visibility of non-SNP pro-indy parties can only help the cause. People need to see that there are a range of opinions about what an independent Scotland should look like and that it won't be whatever the SNP feel like setting up at the time. However, I accept that it is an open question as to whether or not this is best accomplished through the composition of the government, as opposed to some other way.

I also agree that unionist media will paint any result for the SNP in the most negative light they can. Even if the SNP win every constituency seat, I can guarantee you they find the places where the party's vote was down (either in absolute numbers or percentage) from 2011, or where they didn't win with more than 50% of the vote and try to paint this as somehow unfair or proof that they don't really have a mandate.

What an extraordinary question! The consumers of the mainstream media not only care about what the media tell them, they're directly influenced by it. Why on earth would we want to give the media the Christmas present of a "disaster for Sturgeon's separatist dream" narrative?

Each to their own, Justin. You may be relaxed about the possibility of the SNP losing their majority, but I'm sure as hell not.

But James, the mainstream media have been ragging on the SNP for years—especially the last two or three—and despite that, the party has never been stronger. The people who are influenced by the mainstream media don't seem to have a strong enough presence on election day to produce the result that the mainstream editors and pundits want. If they did, the SNP wouldn't have won a majority in 2011, they wouldn't have won 56 seats last year and the referendum result would have been 80% for no.

And anyway, I'm not sure what sort of damage a "disaster result for SNP" headline could do. People will have already voted by then, the SNP will almost certainly be back in government—with or without a majority—and that'll be that until the council elections next year. What am I missing?

On the other hand - if we're going to vote on the basis of what the Unionist papers might say - the SNP's loss of a majority would also make it more difficult for them to sell the "one party state" line. So you know, swings and roundabouts.

They're already trying to delegitimise a future referendum. They started as soon as the result of the first one came back no, by declaring 55% to be a decisive majority and have continued to do so by banging on about how it was supposed to be "once in a generation".

If what you're worried about is recognition of the result of another referendum during this next Holyrood parliament, then sniping from the mainstream media is small beer compared to the battle the Scottish government would have with the Westminster one over their right to hold a second referendum in the first place. Even if the SNP increase their majority and even if Scots are pulled out of the EU against their will, I don't see David Cameron signing another Edinburgh Agreement, and the Scottish government will have a hell of a time getting anyone to recognise a referendum result held without one.

While I appreciate there were good reasons for running the kind of SNP campaign we've seen, the 'steady as she goes' approach taken may well have done little to excite the post-2014 new voters energised by the referendum's new politics.

The other 'pro-indy' parties fell absolutely into the trap set for them by the BBC and the rest of the MSM - Designed to create confusion and trick them into thinking they could safely split the vote.

The unionists will be toasting Curtice and the others involved tonight.

If this prediction comes to pass, the headlines won't be about the Greens winning seats, they won't be about Solidarity or Rise winning seat, because they obviously cannot. They will be about the failure of the SNP to win another overall majority.

DON,T BELIEVE THIS LIE FOR 1 MOMENT THE SNP ARE ON COURSE TO WIPE LIEBOUR OUT OF SCOTLAND SAME AS THE TORYS ALL WE HEAR FROM THESES 2 PARTYS ARE LIES SCOTLAND WAS ROBBED IN THE FREEDOM VOTE THAT IS TRUE

SNP HQ should hang their heads in shame for a dreadfully ill-judged national campaign. The intellectual complacency in that building is increasingly clear for all to see and there is a growing sense of entitlement growing from that.

The good news is that the vast majority of postal votes will have been cast before the polls started converging on a sub-50% share and the ground organisation will probably boost the numbers a little today.

If the SNP fall short of a majority, then I think that they only have themselves to blame. Nicola is busy repositioning the SNP vis-a-vis independence; she is maintaining the party's commitment to Indy, but moving it from a matter of current policy to that of an aspiration perhaps achievable only in the longer term. As a political strategy, this is perhaps understandable but it is naive (given the importance on the constitution in Scottish politics) to think that this repositioning will have no effect on the outcome of the election. I very much hope the James's worst fears are unfounded, but my anecdotal experience is that many of the new Indy/SNP supporters that I know have taken note of the lack of a commitment to Independence and therefore see to compelling reasons to give the SNP a majority.

Very true! But it's hardly RISE or Solidarity or UKIP or the Ruth Party (No Conservatives here honest) or Wee Willie either. Looks like we'll need to do it ourselves. Mebbe that was what all the tactical voting stuff was for. Hmmmmmm....

That's the whole problem , there is no opposition out there , they are all wannabies without brain between the lot of them . I will stay with the SNP until the day I can see a good Scotland first party in opposition , with good Scottish policies I could support .

Re your last post, who cares what Fraser Nelson, Alex Massie, Alan Cochrane and Chris Deerin say? These people are irrelevant and don't appeal to the mass population, apart from a small few on the right. Give it 5-10 years and these guys will be talking to themselves due to the continual decline in newspaper sales. The private sector MSM may still have some power but there will be few left in years to come. The internet and people's unwillingness to pay will see to that.

I think people here are overly sensitive to these non-entities comments, this is what happens when you are very politically engaged. I would put money on there only being a small percentage who actually read what they say and take it in.

"this could set back the cause of independence by years. The unionist media aren't going to be remotely impressed by a nominal pro-indy majority consisting of the SNP and Greens".

To me this is such narrow thinking.

The cause of Independence will be hugely advanced (as it has been already) by it not being owned by a single party but being so obviously part of a much bigger movement for self-determination and social justice.

Who cares what the Unionist media think?

Why let them scare you?

We (the Yes movement) are in this to win, and we stand a far better chance of winning if we have an SNP/ Green Government - or a minority SNP Government having to respond to a strong Green presence - than if we have 3rd term SNP governing alone.

We can win the long game if we're positive, but we lose if we let ourselves be dominated by fear, however much we appear to get some immediate illusory gain (as the Unionists did in September 2014).

As I just said to my Green fellow voters on Bella: let's make it 1st Vote SNP, 2nd Vote Green, let's win the long game

Yes, but by definition that half of the population is not going to be persuaded to vote Yes by the Unionist press or by people who see Independence as an end in itself. They are fare more likely to be won over by the broader Yes coalition that includes the SNP as the main push, but also includes the Greens who argue Indy is a crucial route to a better world.

"They are fare more likely to be won over by the broader Yes coalition that includes the SNP as the main push, but also includes the Greens who argue Indy is a crucial route to a better world."

Look, I like the Greens, and post indy I'll probably vote for them, but this simply isn't true.

The greens polled 80k in 2011, while two million people voted No. And the vast majority of those people are older better off Scots. Having a "more radical" government won't persuade these people. Having a competent and credible Scottish government will.

The greens are a worthy party, but they won't get more than half a dozen seats, and if there is a nominal or shrunken pro-indy majority the vast majority of the people we need to convince will see it as an indefinite end to the independence cause.

Justin - You may have a point if the Greens weren't seen as hard left communist types by most of the electorate outside student politics. 60p tax was daft. Its a gimmick to get votes from morons, because they know they will never have to act on it and see the wealthiest run for the hills. And whilst it may gain the support of a naive 10%, policies like that will never gain mainstream support. Not because people don't see the attraction. They just know it is unworkable, especially in isolation. Holding up essential roads for years isn't a vote winner either.

Five years ago, independence polled at about 30% (if that). By the 18th of September 2014, that proportion had increased to about 45%, even with a mainstream media overwhelmingly hostile to the idea. Similarly, in the 2010 general election, the SNP got just shy of 20% of the Scotland-wide vote. Five years later, they got almost 50%—again, in an environment when the mainstream press was pretty hostile to them. While I'm sure a friendly (or even just neutral) mainstream press would help persuade more people to support independence, I think it's been pretty well shown that it can and does happen without their support.

And as I said in a previous comment, it's not clear to me what actual damage would be done by an "SNP disappointed by election result"-type story.

According to YouGov's tables, 2% Green and 2% UKIP. No other Party registers - they don't seem to have found any Solidarity voters. Some of the Greens will have a candidate of course, but their Constituency vote has been dropping over recent polls, presumably as most people realise it's not possible for them and choose elsewhere. Judging by 2015, UKIP will split evenly Lab/Con/SNP if they vote at all.

On the Regional vote RISE only get 1% and 1% goes to 'Others' (there's quite a few standing in a number of regions).

Of course the real danger is that voting SNP on the list will not just keep out the Greens but let in Lab, Con and Lib Dem MSPs instead. At these levels of polling, voting SNP is the real risk because the SNP will still get the constituencies but be too far away from any list seats (except in South Scotland).

Paradoxically it's because these percentages are lower (a consequence of No voters making up their minds) that tactical voting is more likely to work and SNP regional votes more likely to wasted.

"At these levels of polling, voting SNP is the real risk because the SNP will still get the constituencies"

"Will"? Ah yes, because as we all know, polls are predictions not snapshots.

Oh wait - it's the other way around, isn't it?

I am not suggesting that it's completely impossible for an SNP list vote to cost us the pro-independence majority in certain extreme circumstances. But you know as well as I do that a) those circumstances are not realistically foreseeable at the moment a vote is cast, and b) the risk of a "tactical" list vote for a smaller party costing us the pro-indy majority is much greater.

Well eve of election polls are predictions as well as snapshots. Of course nothing is certain, but you've not really made the case that the balance of risk is indeed that way. I actually suspect that the SNP will get a majority anyway, just on constituencies, but if they do fail by a little, there's no guarantee that the Regional Vote will help replace it (except in South where it should work anyway).

Remember that the SNP will also lose more votes to unionist Parties on the list than they gain (because of people voting personally for SNP MSPs) as well as Green voters who have tactically supported them in the constituencies. So the list vote is always going to be lower anyway. There may also be a bit of a 'rebalancing' since 2011 with a drop in the previously stronger regions (such as North East) compensated by a rise in ones that were less so such as Glasgow. So not only will the SNP not get surplus seats (as in NE and H&I last time) but they won't get a list seat if they do miss one constituency in a region (though they should for two).

Only Scots could manage to snatch a loss from the jaws of victory. The inane witterings of our Tory forelock-tugger, and the resident Neanderthal's tartan Tory jibes are to be expected, because every country has their fair share of village idiots, but phrases such as "The SNP need an effective opposition" just make me cringe. Can you imagine any of the Bullingdon boys musing like that? "What we Tories need is a more effective opposition"? Aye - right! If the SNP lose their majority today because of the sheer selfishness and short-sightedness of The "Bella Caledonia/RISE" bunch and Tommy Sheridan's rump, then we should just all accept that we ARE too stupid, too wee, too argumentative to deserve to govern ourselves, and concede defeat to the dark forces of Westminster. I give up!Alex Birnie

Aye, let's get our retaliatory salvos in early. Let the blames begin!It's always someone else's fault.Still a greater lead than any one party has ever had, even better than the one that returned a majority in 2011, but don't let that get in the way of a good fear mongering, finger pointing moan.

WHY do you expect the Greens to be unreliable allies, when our membership grew ten-fold after the IndyRef with people passionate about Independence AND about having a livable planet to be independent on?

Why not keep building a strong Yes movement rather than destroy your relationship with solid allies?

I don't understand why people prepare their blame for failure rather than prepare their appreciation of collective success.

Actually, come to think of it, I do. It's in the title of a piece I wrote for Bella called:

'Everyone [claims to be] the mother of victory, no one [claims to be] the father of defeat'

Because their is no commitment to a 2nd referendum in the Green Party manifesto. If we end up with an SNP/Green coalition there is no mandate for a 2nd referendum within this parliament, Brexit or not.Aldo MacB

Independence is a means to an end for them. If they could secure priorities 1 and 2 in the UK - or come to believe that they are more achievable as part of the UK - then they may jettison 3. It's up to the pro union parties to woo them with big ideas they might like.

I was just considering what the SNP would do if they found themselves 1 or 2 short. An alliance with the Greens would seem natural - but the Greens are very left wing and idealistic and so for that reason the SNP might be wary of getting too close to them. So the Lib Dems could actually be their best option for a governing coalition. Nicola Sturgeon as FM and Willie Rennie as deputy FM? I wouldn't bet against it!

They would just govern as a minority, as Labour have typically done in Wales when just short of a majority. If (say) the SNP are on 63 out of 129, then the opposition will be on 66. An opposition party (most likely Labour) will probably provide the Presiding Officer, so that's then down to 65. The SNP would lose some votes, but it would be difficult to find issues on which Labour, Tories, Lib Dems and Greens are all in agreement on and in opposition to SNP.

According to Menzies Campbell, the LDs refused to enter coalition talks with the SNP in 2007 because Gordon Brown told them not to. So an SNP-Lib pact would require Willie Rennie to be more of an independent thinker than Tavish Scott or Nicol Stephen. Make of that what you will.

Thank you Juteman, although I do not set out to troll - not all the time anyway!

I've been on here and WoS on and off during the course of the day. The atmosphere is very much one of dread and defeatism. I can't really understand why - it would take quite an upset to put the SNP under 65. But at least you've got a wee taster of how your average unionist feels on an almost daily basis!

For what it is worth, the snps failure to make radical changes on council tax and land reform, as well as the offensive behaviour at football act have put me off them somewhat, throw in trying to talk about with the hardcore party faithful as well as staff, they just dont listen.

So if they do not get a majority they only have themselves to blame, we arent ready for another referendum, im afraid it is 20 years or so away. To sound crude, we have to wait for the oldies to croak it and probably more reasonably, we have to push for devo max rather than independence. It is the only way to convince the waverers.

In 20 years, the North Sea oil will be gone (or worthless), and the UK will be choc full of immigrants. Try explaining your burning need for Scottish 'freedom' to Achmed from Turkey or Slobodan from Serbia: "f*ck Scottish independence - I need benefit!"

2014 was a high point where, if it was ever going to happen at all, it would have happened. I'm afraid it's downhill from here.

Greater local government and devolution is fine though - provided it doesn't risk the integrity of the state.

It won't be gone in 20 years, try 50 (unless of course hydrogen cars and aircraft come in quicker than expected). Anyone in the industry will tell you that. It may be much smaller and employ less people but it will still be there.

Any hoo, as each year marches on the growth on the onshore economy is larger than the reduction in the offshore economy. Meaning that oil becomes less and less significant in the "No" voters argument; if it ever was.

Spoke with two wavering SNP list voters earlier - they were both strongly favouring the Greens, but both have backed the SNP. What the means in the grand scheme of it all is nothing really, but it'll be interesting tonight to see what voting patterns emerge.

If there's a low turnout, and say 10% of SNP list voters do vote Green, we could be looking at an SNP-Green govt which would be fairly interesting. I'd like to see another SNP majority government, but it will not be the end of the world if others have voted Green.

I think Chalky makes a very good point. I am an SNP member, and whilst I don't wish to see the offensive behaviour act removed - I back that, I think we could and should be more 'radical' on land reform and the council tax issues. Although, I can see the long-term game, and if we fall just short of a majority, well there you are.

A few hrs to go though. So let's see what happens!

P.S Is there not a better system to stop the bots, that having to click a dozen times on a various unclear pictures?

This article has clearly been written by an SNP supporter only concerned with boosting their party political interests and trying to wipe out the Greens, at the expense of the independence cause.

Quite clearly it is complete and utter nonsense to claim that anything other than an SNP majority would "set back the independence cause by years".

As long as pro-independence parties have a majority it doesn't matter the make up of those parties, whether its all SNP or SNP/Green or SNP/Green/Rise is irrelevant.

Indeed, a diverse parliament with several different independence parties would actually enhance the independence cause rather than 'set it back', for obvious reasons.

The SNP and their followers, such as the author, are clearly attempting to wipe out the Greens and any other independence party, in order to further entrench their party politically, at the expense of the cause.

I think they are more concerned about mandates, legitimacy, media narratives and the actual practicalities of bringing about independence. A lot of skulduggery would be required - lies, spin and bull. Will the angelic Greens balk when the going gets tough? Will they cover their hands in dirt and blood? (figuratively, of course). My guess is probably not.

Thanks James for all you've done ...just got to wait now. Now the referendum and SP elections I'm assuming you will be off to do a proper job...or will you be hanging around for the EU ref as one last blast?

That comment reads very much like "thankyou James but please sod off now (or by June 23rd at the latest)". Not sure if it was intended that way. For the record, I'm self-employed, and blogging is one part of my income. I don't see any particular reason why I shouldn't consider that to be a "proper job".

Lol! I mean, it could be intended nicely...maybe you could open a business helping Tories fill out their campaign finance paperwork....that's seems a fertile ground for a job as they seem to have no one qualified. Just saying....

Give James a break. I may not agree with him but he's clearly gone to a lot of effort here and has never censored or deleted any of my posts, despite me being a vocal supporter of the UK. We're all human beings, regardless of the result tonight.

Yes James is a tolerent British bloke indeed. Anyone who puts up with the Nat si fanatics deserves some credit.Can we be about to see the Nat sis being propped up by the Tories. The Nat si spin machine will have to do overtime to con their membership if this were to happen

Stuck in boston/ U.S,A. What does no labor wins Glasgow, SNP mandate yes/ Tory tied for second/ lib dems hold what and Orkney and "do well " mean. That's the notes from a major American reporter that I know.

From all evidence I have seen and heard, I genuinely believe that the SNP will slightly increase their majority, the Torys will narrowly take second on seats (but possibly not % share overall) pushing Labour into 3rd. The Greens will comfortably take a fourth place, pushing the Liberal Democrats into 5th. Watch this space!!!!!!

today was good great in fact we smashed it ,. Dont talk to me about RISE grrrrrrrr .They turned up mob handed at one of our polling places, giving it "its safe to give us your second vote". Smarmy condescending gits we are a party of the ordinary people, naw your a party of someones 4th year politics assignment taken a stage too far. They have never ever appeared in our area before today. Their badgering of voters was verging on the harassment Did not do them much good howeverThey got very irate and upset we we were quietly saying don't split your vote , a vote for anyone else may let a Tory in.they just annoyed me today.

These lefty intellectuals get under my skin they think they have the moral ground and they have a sneering attitude towards us.

Several SNP single-trackers on here saying that a campaign for tactical voting has "set the cause of independence back decades" - because, heaven forbid, it might involve them in a democratic coalition with another pro-independence party.

I would like to suggest that, quite the contrary, it's exactly this sort of entitled SNP solipsism that's causing folk like me - who voted SNP before - to vote Green now. The Greens are a party on the up - there's close on 10% of potential referendum votes there - and more among younger folk whose votes will be crucial. Why insult their voters, when you could be building bridges?

The reason we adopted a proportional system in Scotland in the first place was precisely to avoid non-consensual, single-party government. Short memories, or does it only count when the boot's on the other foot?

Tired of being told when it comes to independence only SNP voters count. Also tired of the leadership cosying up to Murdoch. And I didn't split btw - I went Green / Green.

my clue on called areas on where list seats would like fall. James wins on snpx2 by the way. Why the help would so many people visit the blog of a poll analysis expert and spend all day disagreeing with him, ya dumb f****s! Can I say that here.?

"Why the help would so many people visit the blog of a poll analysis expert and spend all day disagreeing with him, ya dumb f****s!"

It's called meaningful, intelligent debate, Bill.

Some folk may have forgotten what that is over the last 5 years, but it's what we're going to have again, now that the SNP don't have an overall majority.

Well done the Greens!

And for those of you interested in the Unionist media, the "single-party state" jibe can now be put to bed, because we'll have two pro-independence parties working together in the interests of Scotland.

And as a bonus - the Scottish people emphatically reject racism. UKIP, you leave with nothing.